a comparison of no till protocols for agricultural carbon offset projects in canada dennis haak,...
TRANSCRIPT
A Comparison of No Till Protocols for Agricultural Carbon Offset Projects
in Canada
Dennis Haak, Agriculture & Agri-Food CanadaOctober 29, 2008.
No Till Protocol Development
1. Pilot Emission Reductions, Removals, and Learnings (PERRL) Initiative, Environment Canada (EC), Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association, 2003 – 2005
2. Environment Canada Offset System Development, 2005 – 2006
ISO 14064 based draft by Soil Management Technical Working Group (SMTWG)
3. C-Green (CCX) 2006, Canadian Prairies4. Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, 20075. Various initiatives currently in development stage
(provincial and federal)
Important Note
This comparison not part of a formal review process
Common Elements of Regional Coefficient Approach
• Coefficient(s) based on model output, developed and validated with research data (eg. Century for soil carbon)
• Tillage activity definitions • Monitoring and verification of activity• Minimize administration costs
- treat large groups of farmers the same
- cheaper to monitor/verify activity than direct
GHG impacts
Scientific Basis for Raw Coefficients
Method Key Features
SMTWG Draft
Soil organic carbon and N2O same as Canada’s inventory reporting under UNFCCC (IPCC Tier II type methodology)
-Century 4.0 model output for SOC
-soil N2O based on rate of N addition plus
other factors, including tillage
-energy coefficients based on GHGFarm model
Alberta
C-Green 20 years of research coordinated by AAFC, Swift Current (similar to above, but not quite as recent)
No Till Activity Definitions
Specific Activity C-Green Alberta SMTWG Draft
Tillage Systems 2 (full & minimum) 3 (full, reduced, and no till)
One pass soil disturbance < 34 % < 47 % < 41 %
Chemical fallow ineligible for year yes
Discretionary Tillage 2 % 10 %
Harrows, land rollers yes
Low disturbance fertilizer or manure injection yes
Fall seeded crops ? yes
No Till Activity Definitions (cont’d)
Specific Activity C-Green Alberta SMTWG Draft
Irrigation ? Use parkland coefficient
Transition to / from perennials yes
Crop failure, cover crops, reseeding hail yes, as long as no tillage
Biomass removalCrop residue burning
no ? yes
Inter row tillage ? no
Livestock grazing swathgrazing ? most
Baseline Approach
Method Key Features
SMTWGDraft
Discount based on Adoption Rate of Practice for Baseline Year
- Key Data Source: Census of Agriculture,
Statistics Canada
- Static during registration period
Alberta
2001
C-Green No Baseline Discount
Non-Permanence of Soil Carbon Beyond Crediting Period
Method Key Features
SMTWGDraft
1. Liability Period (length not decided)
- reversal coefficient for SOC
- rate of reversal = rate of accumulation
2. One year temporary credits
Alberta Assurance Factors
- 87.5 to 92.5 % depending on tillage system and region
- based on expert opinion predictions
C-Green None, however complete ineligibility from any reversals during crediting period
No Till Example: Dry Prairie Region
Variable C- Green Alberta SMTWG Draft
Raw Coefficient (MT CO2 equiv / ac / yr) 0.20 0.195
Baseline Discount no 52 % ?
Assurance Factor Discount no 7.5 % no
Net Coefficient 0.20 0.0875 ?
Liability Costs (monitoring, reversals) no yes
Price ($ / MT) 4.00 ? 15.00 ? ?
Gross Revenue ($ / ac / yr) 0.80 ? 1.31 ? ?
Baseline and Crediting Period
Variable C- Green Alberta SMTWGDraft
Baseline Year for 1st Crediting Period none 2001 ? 2001 +
Project Start 2006 2007 ? 2008 +
Start of Crediting Period 2003 2002 ? 2008 +
Retroactivity yes ? no
Length of Crediting Period (years) 2003 – 062006 – 102008 - 11
11 ? 1 to 8
Baseline Reassessment no yes
No Till
ReducedTill
Tillage Activity Monitoring & Verification
Variable C- Green Alberta SMTWGDraft
Level of Assurance
Signed Adherence yes low
Specific Field Practice Records some likely yes moderate
Field Inspection (verify small %) - soil disturbance (stubble) - mulch layer (retroactive) - equipment & invoice
yesyesyes
???
yesnoyes
highmoderatemoderate
Remote Sensing - unable to assess stubble orientation
? likelysome
no low
Relative Rating of Protocol ElementsNote: Ratings reflect author’s opinion, not a formal review process
Protocol Element C- Green Alberta SMTWG Draft
Science Basis moderate high
Practice Guidance – Tillage Definitions
mod -high high very high
Baseline or Additionality low mod - high high
Non-permanence of Soil Carbon low mod - high high
Monitoring and Verification mod - high low - mod high
Protocol Documentation low moderate high
Overall Adherence to ISO 14064 low - mod mod - high high
Project Feasibility moderate moderate lowFeasibility Constraint low price baseline, non-permanence
The Future
1. Proposed Environment Canada Offset System
- will not lead but rather review / approve protocol development
- Alberta protocol placed on fast track list for early consideration
2. Other provinces considering Alberta protocol for their own system
3. Standardized approach would reduce uncertainty
4. In Canada no till adoption is high
- hard to have both additionality and project feasibility
- need to focus more on policy to support maintenance of practice (eg. EG&S that includes other environmental benefits)
Thank you
Questions and Discussion